Another confrontation with Saddam Hussein was inevitable," said Hitchens in defending the Iraq invasion. "Who should have determined the timing of that confrontation? Saddam Hussein? Or the U.S. and other democratic nations? . . . As long as Saddam Hussein was in power, it was not possible for the U.S. to ever relax," Hitchens said.

Ritter, whose last role at the U.N. was as chief of the "Counter-Concealment Team," fired back at Hitchens. "The Iraq Survey Group, headed by David Kay, found [in post-invasion Iraq] that Iraq had destroyed the totality of its nuclear weapons program and confirmed what the CIA had already said about them having destroyed it as far back as the summer of 1991."

Both statements are true. What Ritter leaves out is that in his interim report Kay described dozens of programs that Saddam would have started up again as soon as he had any opportunity, and reiterated their existence after he resigned:

. . . there are a lot of other important questions to be answered besides the issue of large weapons stockpiles. The procurement networks, for example. There clearly were illicit procurements, and we need to uncover those networks to learn exactly who had been supplying the illegal material ISG was finding but Iraq had not reported to the UN. I think the survey group is now concentrating on that.

We also need to understand the decision-making process in the 1990s that led the Iraqis to the conclusion that they ought to dismantle their weapons and concentrate on programs that would permit weapons production to resume sometime in the future.

Hitchens' point - and the Bush administration's rationale - is that given Saddam's track record, the access to his regime by terrorist groups, and the uncertain status of his WMD programs, the risk of leaving him alone was too great. Whether or not Saddam already had nuclear WMDs ready to go is beside the point.

Ritter ended the debate with passion that brought the most enthusiastic reaction from the crowd. "This is a war that's not worth the life of one American because it's a war based on a lie. And no amount of revisionism will make those lies true," he said.

Ritter ought to be ashamed of himself for quoting Kay, because Kay and others have pointed out that the US intelligence was consistent with that of every other nation, and in fact generated the 14 UNSC resolutions against Saddam. And Saddam never formally disarmed, after repeated requests to do so. So the intelligence was in good faith, whether or not it turned out to be mistaken, as Kay has said himself. So the whole "Bush lied" meme is sheer demogoguery.

Near the end of the debate, Diamond asked Hitchens to explain the constant linking of Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda and September 11 by the Bush administration, despite no proof of any such linkage. Hitchens stunned the crowd by saying the following: "I think you'll find that with the exception of one clumsy statement made by the vice president, there hasn't been any other statements made to that effect."

Well, that's true. The Bush administration repeatedly linked Saddam with international terrorist groups, including Al Queda, and repeatedly made the distinction that there was no proven linkage specifically between Saddam and 9-11. So the moderator, obviously on Ritter's side, and either misinformed or lying, set up a straw man. Ritter returned:

"We have not destroyed al Qaeda, we have not destroyed those who gave them succor and we certainly have not destroyed Osama bin Laden," Ritter said. "To even remotely make the link between 9/11 and Iraq is absurd in the extreme."

Well, no one's claiming that, Scott, you demogogue. But excuse me - the Taliban? Who gave Al Queda succor? Gone, right? Osama? Holed up in a cave somewhere, rendered impotent.

Anyone who uses Osama as a talking point in 2005 doesn't get it. Increasing numbers of Arabs disgusted with terrorism, increasingly impatient with their sclerotic regimes, intrigued by the Iraqi and Afghani experiments in democracy . . . that's the storyline worth following, because that process is the only one that will ultimately starve terrorism of its appeal. Bush and Hitchens understand that the forest is changing, while Ritter examines a few trees.

I wonder if the audience was as much in Ritter's pocket as Geiger claims. The Manhattan audience was about 50/50, and that's in Moonbat Central. I would think there'd be at least a similar mix in the suburbs.